[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (TFT) Re: engagement
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: (TFT) Re: engagement
- From: Ed Thorn <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 16:27:47 -0800 (PST)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=tiAZo/cRZBPqukhtzmgd397dUaumLWkL6hyikksiFTv6YmCEka7tJrqf+YkXiHUdBEFOXTVcB4NlF2mWsMljfuLC9tl9heqS5wh/UzeKdc2bAkw5CIaToParYSP4QHnMSmOTYdkqVEY4iAXNH037WdvAFfG8RQCVSHIY7laiFN4= ;
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: email@example.com
Eliminating the recordkeeping of engagement while keeping some degree of a similar tactical 'zone of control'?
You might wind up with something like d20's reach and Attacks of Opportunity. (Do something vulnerable, or turn your back, and folk near you might get a free swing). In a nutshell.
In d20, you're never 'engaged', meaning 'not allowed to move'. But you might be 'within reach of his spear', meaning 'if you try to run past, he'll try to stick you.'
----- Original Message ----
From: Craig W. Barber <firstname.lastname@example.org>
People have been talking about a lot of topics about engagement lately... How
could we alter the rules to *eliminate* the entire concept of engagement
Post to the entire list by writing to email@example.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to firstname.lastname@example.org with the message body